"I’ve been thinking this evening about how best to do the AtBC offer, and here’s how I will do it. Sincere thanks to all who provided input regarding topics. Will start on Sun Sept 13, will end on Sun Nov. 1.

(1.) First, I’m going to combine “Evolution is incompatible with Christianity” and “The Biblical Perspective on Biology” and write about BOTH items under the overall topic “Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity.”

[snip]

(2.) After a few weeks, I’ll stop posting on that topic, and begin the also-important “ID-is-Science-so-let’s-teach-ID-in-Science-Classrooms” discussion for a few weeks. That will take us to Nov. 1.

(my emphases & other changes -- DM_932)

Anyone wishing to take part in the "FL Debate" thread should check in the "FL Debate Peanut Gallery" thread for any relevant points they might want to include in posts.

NOTE TO AtBC USERS:

It'd be useful to only have 1 or 2 "anticreationist" posts on any given day.

Please use the "Peanut Gallery" thread as much as possible, rather than posting here. That being said, anyone is free to post, of course. Let's just try to exercise a little self-policing. Also, try to keep the posts within the realm of genuine civility. PLEASE.

I'll be checking in at 10 AM PST daily. If people need changes made to their posts, or anything moved to "The Bathroom Wall," contact me by PM, or let me know in the Peanut Gallery Thread and I'll notify a mod, since I was (shamefully) responsible.

Okay, I think I get it now. There's a "FL debate thread" AND an "FL peanut gallery thread." (Good grief!!)

Well, I've already started posting on the peanut gallery thread, (and probably will do some more posting there too, btw!), but I will use this thread for the main focus and debate.

In this main debate thread, I will focus on civility and such. In the peanut thread, I reserve the right to go freestyle and say inflammatory and impolite (but non-profane and not-too-insulting) statements on occasion.

No, evolution is not always the entire gig of why people lose their faith (after all, you're talking about an entire constellation of causes there).

But evolution clearly seems to grease that overall slide downward. It's a contributing corrosive factor, and it keeps on popping up in various personal testimonies. Here's two examples.

Quote

"As were many persons from Alabama, I was a born-again Christian. When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and interest in the fundamentalist religion. I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory."

---E.O. Wilson, The Humanist magazine, Sept. 1982

Quote

"Evolution played an even more central role in torpedoing (Richard) Dawkins' Anglican when he was 15. Dawkins says he had always assumed that the intricacy of living things meant God must have designed them, just as the English philosopher William Paley argued in his 1802 book "Natural Theology."

Then Dawkins began to learn about evolution, and he realized that biology could explain life's apparent design without the need for a deity.

"So finally it was Darwinism that did it for my religious faith," Dawkins said in an interview at Oxford University.

By the way, Manier's article also contains the sad story of Christian college professor (and theistic evolutionist) Howard Van Till's fall from Christianity. Might as well check that horror story out too:

Quote

"If your faith requires supernaturalism, or a God who wields overpowering control over nature, then yes, evolution will challenge that," says Van Till, who took early retirement from Calvin College in 1999.

So since belief in the biblical Jesus automatically entails belief in supernaturalism (you know, supernatural miracles, including "overpowering control" of stormy winds and waves, and little things like, umm, rising from the dead), Van Till is effectively denying what the Bible clearly and foundationally said about Jesus himself.

At that point, you droppin' out of Christianity, folks. A very serious, very tragic, situation. And more than likely, your decisions and actions are influencing somebody else to follow in your footsteps.

So people, we gotta get serious, I don't care what label you wear or don't wear.

Evolutionists from Eugenie Scott and her NCSE gang to the Freeman-Herron evolutionary biology textbook Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition, are busy trying to sell the snake-oiled scam that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity, even though you can clearly see from the above examples that it is simply NOT compatible.

So that's why we have to talk about it. Some of YOU, sitting right there, already know that evolution has done some serious corroding and eroding on YOUR personal or former Christian beliefs too. In fact, some of you used to be Christians but now are NO longer Christians---and evolution is a factor in there somewhere.

(How do I know this? From reading years of your posts at Pandasthumb and other forums, that's how. It just kinda pops up on occasion, it seems.)

This is a tragedy. This is an emergency. And it's happening to science-loving, God-loving youth and young adults right now. We gotta at least talk about it, assuming you got the cajones for such discussion.

My next post will offer a short list of the primary reasons why evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

I'm not going to bother much with your claims about Dawkins, E.O. Wilson or Darwin, FL -- Except to point out that E.O.Wilson remains very much a believer (see his introduction in his 1998 book "Consilience" (Borzoi Books:N.Y., p.6)

Quote

" I’m not an atheist...I have called myself a provisional deist. That is to say I’m willing to consider the possibility of an ultimate cause. But we haven’t really come close to grasping what that might be."From interview here

Wilson -- like Darwin did -- merely discarded those bits of dogma and Biblical literalism that were incompatible with reality. Pity you can't manage that. See, Darwin wrote in his autobiography that a man can undoubtedly be an "ardent Theist & an evolutionist" (he mentions Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples of such).

Quote

"It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. — You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God ." Darwin Project Letter 12041 — to John Fordyce, 7 May 1879

One small aside : The AIG link you gave barely gives the full story on Captain Robert FitzRoy.

AIG mentions that he "was a deeply religious man who believed every word in the Bible and personally conducted divine service every Sunday, at which attendance by all on board was compulsory."

-------------------------------------------My main focus will remain on the following points, FL -- regardless of what bogus self-serving claims you make about "Biblical Correctness" ™ and "TRUE EXEGESIS/INTERPRETATION" ™ :

The view that evolution is inherently antireligious is simply false. For many Christians, in fact, MOST Christians, science is not antireligious -- evolutionary is merely a natural process compatible with belief in a God.

Christian denominations have indicated that an evolutionary perspective is generally compatible with their interpretations of Christianity. *Some* of these denominations include :

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church); Disciples of Christ Church; Eastern Orthodox Churches; Episcopal Church U.S.A.; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Reformed Church in America (Dutch Reformed Church); Roman Catholic Church; United Church of Christ; United Methodist Church; United Presbyterian Church.

Here's some statements about the compatibility of Christianity and evolution, from not one or three people, but churches/church leaders representing entire groups of millions upon millions of Christians:

"Speaking to a group of Italian priests on July 24, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI again addressed the topic of evolution. Referring to debates over creationism in Germany and the United States, he observed that evolution and belief in God the creator are presented “as if they were alternatives that are exclusive —whoever believes in the creator could not believe in evolution, and whoever asserts belief in evolution would have to disbelieve in God,” as the New York Post’s article (July 26, 2007) translated it. “This contrast is an absurdity,” he continued, “because there are many scientific tests in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and enriches our understanding of life and being..." http://www.nypost.com/p....Xm2pWKL

---------------------------------------------------

EPISCOPAL CHURCH, General Convention (2006)

Quote

“the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith.”http://www.episcopalarchives.org/e-archives/bluebook/29.html

---------------------------------------------------

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (1967) General Assembly-approved theological statement on the subject:

Quote

"Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory...Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included...We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction ." http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm

-----------------------------------THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH (2008) Amendment to "The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church."

Quote

" We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific... We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology... Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible. We therefore encourage dialogue between the scientific and theological communities and seek the kind of participation that will enable humanity to sustain life on earth and, by God’s grace, increase the quality of our common lives together." http://calms.umc.org/2008/Text.aspx?mode=Petition&Number=50

---------------------------------------------------

Now that you have seen the official statements from various Christian Groups, it becomes silly for you to claim that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. Illogical, in fact.

On that note, I'm going to post the syllogistic argument Dan set forward in the "Peanut Gallery" :

1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

FL now has only five options:

A -- Contend that statement 1 is false.

B -- Contend that statement 2 is false.

C -- Contend that the reasoning deriving statement 3 from statements 1 and 2 is wrong.

D -- Accept that statement 3 is true.

OR

E -- Change the subject by saying something irrelevant like "Some of you boys have already experienced either the LOSS of your Christian faith, or at least a SERIOUS EROSION of your Christian faith. And your slide (your back-slide, that is) is partly or indirectly due to the impact of evolution-claims on your own beliefs."

Which will it be, FL? Keep in mind that debate is dialogue, not monologue, and that civility (well, to a decent, ethical person) would require *directly* addressing the points of your opponent (as I have with you).

Respond directly and thoroughly to the points above, keeping in mind that you've already lost.

My money is that you'll merely try to use a combination of "A" and "E" then launch into a Gish Gallop while ignoring actually facing the reality of your instant loss.

If FL truly beleives that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, why not do the obvious thing and abandon Christianity? Because there is a LOT more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for the historical claims of Christianity.

Charles Darwin was a loving husband for 43 years, and the adoring and adored father of 10 children (he also helped to rear his grandson Bernard). In the biographies of Darwin I have read, his contemporaries call him kind, shy, retiring, and thoughtful. He maintained correspondence with scientists like Hooker for decades, and there's good reason to think Hooker considered Darwin to be a dear friend. Darwin was an early and ardent opponent of slavery.

In this thread, FL says he will "focus on civility," yet he calls this gentle and thoughtful man "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin". FL, is this your idea of civility? Do you really think you're giving a good name to Christianity by behaving this way?

This is the response from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, on my enquiry about how they stand in the so called evolution debate. I spoke to Stephen Lynas, the church's press officer at Church house in Belfast. This respose was also confirmed by a YEC Presbyterian minister with whome I had a long conversation:

So long as a Christian believes that God created the heavens and the Earth, it is for you to decide how and when he did it

Rev. Neish again confirmed this was the official position. This means (in my opinion anyway) that a member can be anything from a flatearther, all the way to a TE (my own position). I asked if there was a position within the church for a person with views such as myself i.e. I accept both an ancient Earth/Universe, and Bilogical evolution (i.e. science in other words) and he replied yes.

However, this is in direct conflict with AiG and CMI, who appear to have infiltrated the denomination.

E.O. Wilson: I have spoken with Wilson concerning this very topic. My impression is that Wilson abandoned fundamentalist Christianity because his vision of god was grander than that of fundamentalist Christianity. That is, he saw fundamentalism as constraining the idea of god.

that FL quotes is clear. It was not knowledge of evolution that "corroded" the faith of Howard Van Till, it was the actions of inflexible Christians at the conservative Calvin College, who insisted on a "monthly interrogation where he struggled to reassure college officials that his scientific teachings fit within their creed. Van Till’s career survived the ordeal, but his Calvinist faith did not."

Charles Darwin: Most biographers attribute Darwin's change from clergy-in-training to agnostic to the death of his daughter Annie when she was ten years old. Darwin did not write extensively about this change, but the dates are telling: Darwin conceived his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1838. Annie died 1851. Darwin became agnostic in 1851.

Let's be clear about the point of logic: Even if all of FL's examples were valid, that still wouldn't show that "evolution is incompatible with Christianity". But it's still noteworthy that only one of FL's four examples is valid.

Okay, gentlemen, good to be back. Forgive my delay, wanted to be here yesterday but family and sickness interrupted. I'll be here (the main debate thread) for about a couple of hours. Also plan on doing so tomorrow as well. Let's go to Deadman right now:

Quote

I'm not going to bother much with your claims about Dawkins, E.O. Wilson or Darwin, FL -- Except to point out that E.O.Wilson remains very much a believer (see his introduction in his 1998 book "Consilience" (Borzoi Books:N.Y., p.6)

A "believer"? In what? Oh no no no---most certainly Wilson is NOT a believer, if you are using that word to denote any sort of Christian believer. Unless otherwise specified, that is the ONLY sense in which I myself will be using that term "believer", because again the topic to be defended is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."

Let's go to Wilson's book Consilience, shall we?

Quote

...But most of all, Baptist theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all!

Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God? Might the pastors of my childhood, good and loving men though they were, be mistaken?It was all too much, and freedom was ever so sweet.

I drifted away from the church, not definitively agnostic nor atheistic, just Baptist no more.

Please notice: EVOLUTION was the belief that clearly caused him to drop Christianity. And carefully notice something else: Wilson didn't just drop "fundamentalist Christianity", Dan. Wilson dropped all of Christianity, even theism itself.

Quote

(Wilson) "So I am not a theist, but I'll be a provisional deist...."

(Steve Paulson, Slate.com interviewer) "It's fascinating because everything you've said up until now suggests that you should be an atheist. Why hold out the specter that maybe there was some divine presence that got the whole thing going?"

(Wilson) "Well, because there's a possibility that a god or gods -- I don't think it would resemble anything of the Judeo-Christian variety -- or a super-intelligent force came along and started the universe with a big bang and moved on to the next universe. I can't discount that."

--Slate.com, May 21, 2006

My guess Dan, is that if you speak with him again, you'll see that THAT is his actual position. Second only to Richard Dawkins, perhaps, EO Wilson is the standout evolutionist example that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Listen to part of evolutionist Michael Ruse's review of Consilience:

Quote

Moreover, never a man to let a problem or an obstacle deter him, having lost the supports of Christianity, (Wilson) is determined to find religious supports elsewhere.

Indeed he has found them elsewhere, namely in evolution – a fact which Wilson proclaims here as before in many places (notably in On Human Nature). Wilson finds evolution to be the "myth" that he needs to build his new religion.

See, Darwin wrote in his autobiography that a man can undoubtedly be an "ardent Theist & an evolutionist" (he mentions Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples of such).

And yet, Darwin unfortunately couldn't cite himself in support of that claim, could he? Oh, no no. He dropped out of Christianity AND theism and wound up, AFAIK, dying as an agnostic. And as his own words from the christianity.net link made very clear, that dropping out was directly related to his evolution beliefs and their implications, which caused him to first drop the Old Testament historical claims, and then the New Testament historical claims (including those about Jesus Christ), and then theism itself.

(And of course, we've already seen Wilson dropping out of Christianity and theism by his own admission, not to mention Dawkins of course.)

Oh sure sure, evolution-beliefs don't cause everybody to drop out of Christianity and become deists/agnostics/atheists. By the sheer grace and power of God, many Christians are spared from that fate. But NOT because evolution is compatible with Christianity, as we shall see.

Most importantly, as we've already seen, people ARE slipping through the cracks, losing their faith because evolution is incompatible with Christianity---and if you lose your Christian faith, if like Darwin you can't even believe in Jesus Christ and what He did for you on the Cross anymore, what will happen to you after you die???

So, we must needs continue examining this issue. Too much at stake, honestly. After all, you and I can't hide behind Asa Gray's skirts on Judgment Day!

******

Therefore, Deadman, let us proceed to the main incompatibilities and hash them out. You said,

Quote

The view that evolution is inherently antireligious is simply false.

However, I did not say that our topic would be "Evolution is Incompatible with Religion."

After all, if you are a deist, or an agnostic, or an atheist, (yes the 7th circuit court of appeals made clear that atheism is a religion too), you'll have LOADS of fun with evolution. Those three belief-systems are right up the ole evo-alley for sure..

But I said that "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity." That's the difference. THAT stark reality is what ain't goin' away anytime soon.

******

And now, let's start off with FOUR very serious, very documented, reasons why evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

1. In biblical Christianity, God is the REQUIRED explanation for the origins and existence of all biological objects (plants, animals, humans, etc) on earth, and He is the REQUIRED explanation for the origins and existence of the stars, the planets, the sun, the moon, and all other cosmological objects -- indeed, the entire universe. The Bible is very clear on this point.

(See Genesis 1:1, Genesis chapters 1 and 2, and see Colossians 1:16, for example. Also see John chapter 1:3 --- "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.")

In contrast, evolution specifically denies that God is the REQUIRED explanation for said origins.

Quote

"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic.

Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process..."

---David Olroyd, professor, School of Science and Technology Studies, University of New South Wales in Australia, speaking to The Weekend Review (Aus), Mar. 20-21, 1993.

Quote

"First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

"It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)."

As I said, there are FOUR very serious, very specific, very documented, incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity. (There may be more than four; but let's just start with these biggies for now.)

The first one has been put on the table already. Let's go to the next one.

******

2. Evolution directly preaches and teaches the doctrine of NT-NCF (No-Teleology-No-Conscious-Forethought), which is clearly diametrically opposed to what biblical Christianity teaches about biological origins.

What does evolution's doctrine of NT-NCF look like? It looks (and smells) like THIS:

Quote

"Teleological statements are those that invoke goals, or ends (Greek teleos, "end"), as causes (eg, "He went to the store in order to get milk.")

But evolutionary theory does not admit anticipation of the future (i.e. conscious forethought), either in the process of evolution of an adaptive characteristic or in the development of or behavior of an individual organism."

---Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3rd edition, p. 342

Now read that again, folks. Carefully. It's important.

He's saying that according to evolutionary theory itself, the process of evolution that resulted in the origination of the first humans on Earth DOES NOT ADMIT any conscious forethought, any purposefulness or any goal-directedness at ANY point of said evolutionary process, including the point where humans appear. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Listen again to the textbook-taught NT-NCF of evolution:

Quote

"Thus the adaptations of organisms have indeed been 'designed', but by a completely mindless process.

The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past." ---EB3, pg 342.

Do you see this, people? DO you? This is a direct head-on CRASH with Bible verses like Genesis 1:26-27, Matthew 19:4-6 (Jesus's own words), and Colossians 1:16, all of which speak not only of God's teleology in creation, but Jesus's teleology in creation. All creation. Including humans!!!

(Remember, Col. 1:16 not only says that everything was created BY Jesus, but that everything was created FOR him---that's a direct inescapable claim of teleology right there folks!!).

So now you see the existence of another huge incompatiblity between evolution and Christianity. And just like Item #1, evolutionists have NEVER been able to resolve it. Never. The chasm is just that monstrous.

Quote

"Evolution has no goal." --- Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, 2009

"Evolution has no goal." -- Online Lecture Notes for Biology 391, Organic Evolution, at the University of Tennessee-Martin.

1) Notice how FL ignores the actual reason that caused Charles Darwin's crisis of faith: the death of his daughter due to disease.

2) Notice also how FL ignores deadman's inquiry concerning the Pope being a Christian who has had absolutely no qualms about accepting Jesus as his savior, as well as accepting evolution as a fact.

3) And notice how FL never advocates abandoning the use of the numerous products made possible through evolution or through any sciences that utilize evolutionary biology and or its offshoots, products like antibiotics, vaccines, petroleum products, dinosaur-themed products, food made from domesticated plants and animals, or the keeping, raising and breeding of domesticated plants and animals. The last time I brought this to FL's attention, he had the moronic, hypocritical gall to claim that because these things were actually the products of microevolution, it was perfectly okay to reject evolution while still using such products without fearing for their immortal souls.

Let's face it....With Darwin's own Christian faith clearly getting flushed down the toilent, piece by biblical piece, by his own handwritten admissions to friends and acquaintances, that honestly makes any "hey look at ardent theist Asa Gray" pronouncements on Darwin's part ring very hollow.

If evolution is compatible with Christianity, then what are YOU doing bogged down in the swamp of agnosticism, Mr. Charles Darwin? Why aren't you following Asa Gray's example of hanging on to the Christian faith, why aren't you living what you yourself are claiming?

******

Quote

Gray, considered by Darwin to be his friend and "best advocate", also attempted to convince Darwin in these letters that design was inherent in all forms of life, and to return to his faith. --- Wikipedia

Ahhh, but notice something else--Gray tried to defend the concept of intelligent design WRT origins. Gray apparently took a stand against NT-NCF evolution as taught by evolutionists today.

In this thread, FL says he will "focus on civility," yet he calls this gentle and thoughtful man "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin". FL, is this your idea of civility?

Won't lie to you, Dan---Mr. Darwin AIN'T my patron saint, and you should not look for me to speak reverently of him at all times, not even in this main debate thread where I'm committed to civility. Besides, the promised civility applies to you and all the posters/readers here. Didn't promise anything to Darwin.

Now, I won't do any blatant insults on him, but for me "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin" is within the boundaries. I do not owe him any reverence---and quite frankly, given what he said about black folks in The Descent Of Man, I honestly think I'm being too lenient on his butt anyway.

But having said that, I'll go no farther than the occasional "B-D-C-D". Fair enough, yes?

2. God created everything with teleology (purposefulness, goal-directedness, and conscious forethought) according to biblical forethought. In fact, according to the clear statement of the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself is the Teleological Creator of the entire universe and everything in it, including us humans.Evolutionary theory itself completely denies this, and especially denies ("DOES NOT ADMIT") the involvement of any conscious forethought at any point of the evolutionary process, including the origination of humans. No wiggle room, no exceptions, no escape hatches.

******

Okay, now let's present the last two incompatibilities.

3. Evolution specifically denies the foundational Christian claim that humans are created and designed in the image of God. Needless to say, both the Old and New Testaments affirm that humans are created in God's image. Yet evolution denies this.

Quote

"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside."

---"Evolution and the Brain", Nature science journal, June 14, 2007

Quote

"The image-of-God thesis does NOT go along with just any theistic view. It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man."

--- pro-evolution philosopher James Rachels, Created From Animals, c1990.

Okay, so you can see that evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity on that one. Don't even try to fix it.Let's go to the final killer incompatibility.

This one is the worst of all, because it directly crashes into the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no way to escape the broken-glass impact of this one.

Evolutionary theory teaches that death has ALWAYS been present on this planet. No exceptions.

This is a direct negation of Romans 5:12-17, which says that death historically entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned (this event is called "The Fall.")

That particular negation is very bad, because if Romans 5:12-17 is historically false, then it's NO longer possible for Christians to tell anybody the meaning of what Christ accomplished or didn't accomplish on the Cross.

Because of the direct unavoidable historical parallels drawn between Adam and Jesus in Rom. 5:12-17, a non-historical Genesis necessarily means a non-historical Gospel. A historically inaccurate Creation (and Fall) account necessarily means a historically inaccurate Cross (and Atonement) account. Then you Christians out there got NOTHING to offer this planet anymore.

BTW, both Christians and non-Christians have pointed out this stunning situation. (For example, the Native American activist Vine Deloria Jr. in his book God is Red. calls attention to it)

Here, check out this evolutionist example---this guy knows the score:

Quote

"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.

"Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins--and this is what evolution means--then Christianity is nothing!"

Quite clear, yes? You see that, Deadman? How about you, Dale? You, Stanton? You see what evolution REALLY means, yes?

******

So there you go. Four Incompatibilities between Evolution and Christianity. Each one a killer, each one massive and huge, each one long-standing and intractable, each one clearly documented by evolutionists themselves.

Please review them and think them over during the course of this discussion. Sincere thanks if you choose to do so.

Okay, let's start winding down for the night. Let's address posts by Reed and by Dale:

For Reed: You're right, we do need to start defining what is meant by the term "evolution", although you can see from some of the quotations that evolutionists themselves do not always do so.

Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. So if there is any question about things, I will be using the definitions given by the standard (and currently used) high-school and university textbook "Biology" by Campbell and Reece, 7th edition, c2005.

Quote

Microevolution:Evolutionary change below the species level, change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation.

Macroevolution: Evolutionary change above the species level, including the appearance of major evolutionary developments, such as flight, that we use to define higher taxa.

Campbell-Reece's definition of macroevolution is consistent with what Scott Freeman-Jon Herron offers in their Evolutionary Analysis textbook, so I will include that definition as well:

Quote

Macroevolution:Large evolutionary change, usually in morphology;typically refers to the evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their placement in different genera or higher-level taxa.

If FL truly beleives that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, why not do the obvious thing and abandon Christianity? Because there is a LOT more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for the historical claims of Christianity.

Well, you may want to read that paragraph again Dale. What you're writing there--whether I agree with it or not (and I don't)--is actually REINFORCING the truth claim that I'm seeking to defend in this main debate thread: "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."

What you're saying there is NOT causing evolution to become compatible with Christianity. Instead you're recommending a course of action (abandonment of Christianity) that apparently assumes that indeed there does exists a real incompatibility somewhere, and that abandoning Christianity is the most rational way (as you see it) to respond to that real incompatibility.

Nice reinforcement of incompatibility there. Also your suggestion that Genesis is "discredited", and that the writers of the Scriptures may be lying, likewise doesn't create any reconciliations between evolution and Christianity.

FL’s coup de grâce, reason number four, is vintage Henry Morris and is actually an objection to old earth creationism, not evolution per se. The objection is, to paraphrase:

If there was death before the fall, then the gospel is destroyed.

I have posted on this many times—it is the “no dead mouse problem.” It paints a picture of God’s redemptive plan being at the mercy of an elephant not stepping on a mouse prior to the Fall, as indicated by the java program:

But enough of that. The exegetical analysis is problematic in a number of ways. FL refers us to Paul’s letter to the Romans:

Quote

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

The first objection is not the more important one—but rather just a note on precision. Verse 12 informs us that death came to all men. It says nothing about animals.

However—that is for amusement purposes only. The real issue is taking death in the Romans passage to refer to physical death as opposed to spiritual death—i.e., as in “dead in our sins” (Eph. 2:1).

Even within the passage itself it is tortuous to interpret this death as mundane physical death. For in v. 14 Paul tells us that death reigned from Adam to Moses. But there was no change in the pattern of physical death at the arrival of Moses (or Jesus for that matter.) People died in the same manner. Clearly Paul is referring to a spiritual change with the arrival of Moses—manifested, obviously, by the giving of the Law. But physical death? No—man had his three score and ten before Moses and the same after Moses.

Things get worse, fatally, when this passage is tied to Genesis. There we have God’s promise to Adam:

Quote

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen 2:17)

As we know, Adam did eat. And on that day he surely did not stop breathing. In fact, according Gen. 5:5, Adam lived to the age of 930. The literalist is left with some unpleasant choices:

1) God was only blowing smoke—like the bad parent: I swear if you touch that one more time I’ll spank you so hard your eyes’ll pop out!

2) God changed his mind—repudiating the doctrine of God’s immutability and leaving us with the unpleasant possibility that he’ll change his mind about other things too. (No way am I sending Jesus back—what was I thinking when I made that promise?)

Some famous top-ten early church theologians recognized this problem and became the first non-literalists, arguing that “a day is like a thousand years” to God, so that each Genesis day was a thousand years—and Adam did not live to be 1000—problem solved.

But again the obvious solution, the only real solution that makes sense out of both Genesis 2:17 and the Romans passage, is that the death referred to in each was spiritual death—i.e. spiritual death (our inability for us to please God or seek God in any manner) and not physical death was the result of the Fall.

That not only makes sense there--but for interpreting the rest of the bible as well--for from the third chapter of Genesis on the bible is all about spiritual redemption.

I understand how many of my fellow Christians are YECs. While I disagree with the YEC position it doesn’t bother me nor prevent fellowship. But this particular extension of the argument—i.e., that “we have studied this problem have concluded that death before the fall would render the gospel impotent and the creator of the universe powerless to redeem his people” is so arrogant (and also intractable —a bad combination—like the basketball player who is small but slow) that it makes my blood boil. But as I said—F.L. is too liberal for my tastes.

--------------Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

this particular extension of the argument—i.e., that “we have studied this problem have concluded that death before the fall would render the gospel impotent and the creator of the universe powerless to redeem his people” is so arrogant (and also intractable —a bad combination—like the basketball player who is small but slow) that it makes my blood boil. But as I said—F.L. is too liberal for my tastes.

In this thread, FL says he will "focus on civility," yet he calls this gentle and thoughtful man "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin". FL, is this your idea of civility?

Won't lie to you, Dan---Mr. Darwin AIN'T my patron saint, and you should not look for me to speak reverently of him at all times, not even in this main debate thread where I'm committed to civility. Besides, the promised civility applies to you and all the posters/readers here. Didn't promise anything to Darwin.

Now, I won't do any blatant insults on him, but for me "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin" is within the boundaries. I do not owe him any reverence---and quite frankly, given what he said about black folks in The Descent Of Man, I honestly think I'm being too lenient on his butt anyway.

But having said that, I'll go no farther than the occasional "B-D-C-D". Fair enough, yes?

FloydLee

Charles Darwin is not my patron saint, either. Darwin never wished to be sainted by anyone and never has been. No one owes Darwin "reverence" nor does anyone treat him reverently. No one worships at his shrine. How could they? He doesn't have a shrine!

Dear FloydLee - could I perhaps ask for some clarification? When you say that 'Evolution is incompatible with Christianity' do you mean that

1) Evolution is incompatible with Christianity as generally understood by those who describe themselves as Christians

or more specifically that

2) Evolution is incompatible with Christianity as you define it?

I would have thought that Deadman's example of the Pope, among others, is enough to refute (1) - clearly, some (in fact many) people who consider themselves to be Christians find Evolution to be compatible with their Christianity. So I suspect that you are arguing for (2) - with the implication that those who call themselves Christian but accept evolution are, in your view, not truly Christians (or are at least mistaken about the true nature of Christianity and its compatibility with evolution). Have I interpreted you correctly?

I do so love Floyd's appeal to selective reading as a basis for his argument as in, "look Darwin gave up Christianity as he embraced his understanding of Evolution, ergo he gave up Christianity because it was incompatible with his new understanding!". Nevermind that this type of thinking is a logical fallacy (a la fallacy of the general rule), it holds no value because it is anecdotal at best and misrepresentative at worst. Yo Floyd - do you have any actual statistics showing that...say...60% of those who've abandoned Christianity did so because they found their beliefs incompatible with evolution? In other words, do you have something other than your opinion and speculation?

Oh, and btw, you need stop repeating bogus claims from the likes of the World Nut Daily or the equivalent. The 7th Circuit Court of Wisconsin did not rule that atheism is a religion. Here's the case law:

What they said was that for the purposes of holding of a belief, even a non-belief, about the purpose of life, any such concept, even if founded in "secular philosophy" is protected by the second amendment and cannot be infringed upon by the State. So yet again, your understanding of issues is demonstrated to be incorrect and your sources to be less than credible.

In any event, my definition and practice of Christianity is perfectly compatible with evolution as it requires no belief in any kind of miracles or special creation whatsoever. That your particular take on "Christianity" is incompatible with your particular misunderstanding of evolution isn't cause for any kind of concern on the part of rational people as far as I can tell.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis